More Idiot Sports Commentary on Steroids
Sportswriter Hal Bodley of USA Today stated, "Some people are quick to say until they have documented proof that Clemens was involved with steroids he'd get their vote for the Hall of Fame. My approach is just the opposite: Until he and all the others in question can prove they did not use performance-enhancing substances I will not vote for them."
Bodley's position was not to cast a symbolic vote, such as denying Clemens his vote the first year as a protest, and then vote him in later. He proclaimed, "Not on the first ballot, not on the 15th. To say there is no proof they did use steroids is just an easy cop-out."
"An easy cop-out."? Innocent until proven guilty is "an easy cop-out"?
The "easy cop-out" is Bodley's position -- forcing Clemens to prove a negative. Clemens has to prove that the charges by his former trainer before the Mitchell Commission in which the trainer wasn't under oath -- and who is under federal investigation -- are not true. How do you prove you *didn't do something*, especially when it was *seven* years ago.
Did I fall down the rabbit hole this week and now am Rodney in Wonderland?
Bodley's position was not to cast a symbolic vote, such as denying Clemens his vote the first year as a protest, and then vote him in later. He proclaimed, "Not on the first ballot, not on the 15th. To say there is no proof they did use steroids is just an easy cop-out."
"An easy cop-out."? Innocent until proven guilty is "an easy cop-out"?
The "easy cop-out" is Bodley's position -- forcing Clemens to prove a negative. Clemens has to prove that the charges by his former trainer before the Mitchell Commission in which the trainer wasn't under oath -- and who is under federal investigation -- are not true. How do you prove you *didn't do something*, especially when it was *seven* years ago.
Did I fall down the rabbit hole this week and now am Rodney in Wonderland?
posted by Rod Carveth at 7:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home